Who Owns Norfolk Island? Herein, Lies The Problem.

This article might as well begin with the words in which it ends: “The law says one thing, we in our hearts say another.  Which is right?  Does it matter?  Yes, it matters.” 

Who owns Norfolk Island is a question most recently put in the local newspaper, The Norfolk Islander, some three months ago (July 14, 2012).  Yet it first surfaces on Norfolk with the arrival of the Pitcairn Islanders on June 8, 1856.  Although the question in many respects has been overcome by recent events, the answer remains pertinent, elusive and, for many, bittersweet. 

Codex Pitcairnensis: Pitcairn Island constitution, 1837.

Most of us of Pitcairn Island descent were raised to believe Queen Victoria gave Norfolk Island to the Pitcairn Island people.  It didn’t matter your opinion of the future political relationship between the Australian Commonwealth and Norfolk, which could always generate heated community debate.  It didn’t matter in which country you were born.  If you were of Pitcairn descent, you were raised hearing at least one of your parents and all your Island grandparents passing on the same opinion: Queen Victoria gave Norfolk to the Pitcairn Islanders.  That sentiment can be observed on Norfolk to this day.  Witness the beautiful Queen Victoria Garden opened in 2009 by Marie Bailey as a testament to the Queen’s gift to the Pitcairn people.  Even as recently as two weeks ago (October 6), a member of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly in a letter-to-the-editor in the local newspaper refers to Norfolk as the homeland granted the Pitcairn Islanders by the Queen.  It’s probably true that the younger generations of Norfolk Islander no longer feel the same passion of commitment to this belief, but the decision-makers of this island still do.  After the beauty of this place, that Queen Victoria ceded this island to the Pitcairn Islanders in 1856 and the consequent gratitude to her may be the two things over time that Norfolk Islanders have agreed on most.

There is, in fact, little doubt that the Pitcairn Islanders arrived on Norfolk believing the Island was theirs.  This is consistently mentioned in the correspondence and diary entries of the Islanders and of the three Englishmen who had married into the community and arrived with them.  Indeed, it is clear that not only would the Pitcairners not have left Pitcairn had they not believed Norfolk had been ceded to them, but according to the log of Captain Montresor of the “HMS Calypso”, who in 1860 interviewed the first group of Islanders who subsequently returned to Pitcairn, they returned because “they did not consider Norfolk Island as their own” [1].  The Crown, however, although remarkably generous in the Pitcairners’ relocation to and establishment on Norfolk, equally believed it had never ceded control.  Moreover, to relinquish British land to another people, as it were, would have been highly unusual and would have required an Imperial decree that evidently never occurred.  And therein lies the problem: two well-meaning peoples with two profoundly contradictory views of the same place.  Who “owns” Norfolk Island?  Since June 8, 1856, it has depended on who you ask.

How can this be?  How could such a basic question about ownership occur?  The historical record, to date, only clarifies the dilemma, without providing any answers.  But if we use the historical data as dot points, we can try to connect them to form a picture of how such a fundamental misunderstanding could have become so firmly entrenched.  The dot points are, in chronological order: 1) Governor Sir William Denison's letter-of-instruction to Lieutenant George W. Gregorie, charged with relocating the Pitcairners to Norfolk, included in a dispatch dated February 27, 1856 [2], which Gregorie takes to Pitcairn; 2) Denison’s second letter-of-instruction to the same dated May 16, 1856 [3], significantly amending the first letter, of which the Pitcairners wouldn’t have been aware until they arrived on Norfolk; 3) the Letter-of-Cession, which Islanders still refer to as the document that formally ceded Norfolk to them and which Chief Magistrate George Martin Fredrick Young and First Councillor Thomas Buffett attest in affidavit was required to be surrendered to Denison in 1859 [4], and 4)  the letter from Captain Stephen Fremantle of the “HMS Juno” to Chief Magistrate Young dated June 25, 1856, affirming Denison’s authority to determine land ownership on Norfolk [5].  There are, as well, interstitial events in this time period – most notably, correspondence between Denison and senior officers of the Colonial Office expressing an interest in prohibiting all grants and sales of land on Norfolk to non-Pitcairn Islanders (“… until the present experiment be fully tried”.[6]); the establishment on 24 June, 1856, of the distinct and separate Crown Colony of Norfolk Island, so that no other colony could pass legislation affecting the wellbeing of the Pitcairners [7], and the corresponding creation of the Great Seal of Norfolk Island upon which is engraved a ship named “Pitcairn” sailing into a bay lined with Norfolk Island pines – all of which unwittingly seemed to only solidify these two conflicting notions about ownership of Norfolk Island.

Great Seal of Norfolk Island, 1857.

 The backdrop to Gov. Denison’s first letter-of-instruction is the Pitcairner’s desire by the 1850s to, once again, relocate to a larger island.  (Their first attempt at resettlement was a disasterous five months in Tahiti in 1831, during which they lost some 20% of their numbers to influenza.)  Hawaii was a candidate, for example, on the invitation of King Kamehameha III.  But the Pitcairners were loyal subjects of the British Crown and wanted to maintain their link to it, as well as their separateness in the world.  Norfolk Island, in the meantime, was in the process of being disbanded as a penal settlement.  Relocation to Norfolk loomed enticing both to the Pitcairners and their supporters in England eager to represent their interests, and to the British Colonial Office, which was pleased with the thought of a loyal, English-speaking people maintaining the considerable infrastructure they had created.  In addition, Napoleon III was by now in power in France and French activity in nearby Noumea was escalating, so continued occupation of Norfolk was strategically desirable, as well.  But cession?  Even as late as 1854, the Pitcairners were informed by British Consul, B. Toup Nicolas, that ceding the Island to them would not be possible [8].  So how do we get from that point to the Pitcairners arriving in 1856 believing Norfolk belonged to them?  Even if you presumed an island naiveté borne of culture and isolation, which their private and public correspondence does not suggest, the decision to relocate to Norfolk included the participation of Buffett, Evans and Nobbs, three reasonably well-educated Englishmen, and the active involvement of Admiral Fairfax Moresby, a staunch friend of the Pitcairn people and Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Station.  So, again, if Norfolk hadn’t been ceded to them, how could a reasonably well-counseled people come to so firmly believe otherwise?  There is one other element to the background story: particularly given their experience in Tahiti, not every Pitcairner wanted to leave their home for Norfolk and there was a great reluctance to break the community up.  Concurrently, Gregorie had been advised by Denison that, “… it would be well that you use your influence to induce the whole community to move together” [9].  This is what I think happened.

Denison’s first letter-of-instruction speaks of setting aside some 1000 acres for various public or common purposes and the remainder of the Island, plus stores, livestock, etc.,"... be handed over to the different heads of families..." [10].  The precise distribution of land would be based on what was agreed upon between Gregorie and Chief Magistrate Young.  What follows is entirely speculation, but had Gregorie returned without the Pitcairn Islanders the mission and perhaps his military career would have been considered a failure.  I have often wondered to what extent Gregorie may have oversold the interpretation of the “remainder” of the island being for the Pitcairners.  His official log sheds no light on the subject.  But that first letter is profuse in extending the use of Norfolk to the Pitcairners and I can imagine the temptation to exaggerate a little to salvage the mission and get everyone onboard.  I still search for Gregorie’s personal diary or letters; something in which he might have recorded his private thoughts and experience.  People have argued that if Gregorie did oversell Norfolk, as an agent of the Crown, it would have amounted to a contract.  Meanwhile, well after Gregorie and the Pitcairn Islanders are en route to Norfolk, Denison amends the first letter-of-instruction to Gregorie regarding the Pitcairners’ use of Norfolk.  This second letter stipulates that all arrangements for land can be revised and amended by himself as Governor-General of New South Wales, a position Denison held concurrent with that of Governor.  This condition is new and unknown to the Pitcairners when they arrive. 

The wording of the Letter-of-Cession, which reputedly ceded Norfolk to the Pitcairners, is unknown.  We know its purpose by its absence.  In an (undated) affidavit, Chief Magistrate Young and First Councillor, John Buffett, declare that upon arrival a document (the Letter) was presented to Chief Magistrate Young by Commissariat Officer, Thomas Samuel Stewart, giving them “… possession of Norfolk Island and all stores, livestock, houses, etc. etc. on Norfolk Island...”.  (Steward and a small party had remained on Norfolk after the closure of the penal colony to meet the Pitcairners and would have been the highest-ranking authority on land.) 

This Letter-of-Cession is what people refer to when they state that Queen Victoria gave Norfolk to the Pitcairners.  It is a belief I share.  George Martin Fredrick Young was my great-great-grandfather and his having to relinquish the Letter to Denison remains the lore of my family.  This particular document, after being returned to Denison, has not been seen since.

While it is documented that Denison’s second letter-of-instruction was given to Captain Henry Denham of the “HMS Herald” for delivery to Gregorie upon his arrival on Norfolk [11], I can’t help but think that the Letter-of-Cession is, in fact, a copy of Denison’s first letter-of-instruction.  Both documents – the affidavit and the first letter-of-instruction – refer to the same thing: the Pitcairners having full use of the land and what is on it (less a portion for public use).  The affidavit claims that their document was signed by Denison, as would have been the first letter.  And it is known that Gregorie, on Denison's recommendation, called on Norfolk on his way from Sydney to Pitcairn to confer with Stewart in preparation for the Pitcairners’ arrival.  He would have had ample opportunity and reason to share a copy of his instructions with Commissariat Officer Stewart, with whom the final preparations for the arrival lay. 

It's quite possible that the Pitcairners arrived without knowledge of the wording of Gregorie's first letter, which is why their emphasis is on what they received from Stewart.  There is no entry in Gregorie’s journal of his reading his instructions to them on Pitcairn.  This is not entirely surprising since the instructions contained personal comments about Nobbs, which would not have been for public consumption.  Moreover, Gregorie was tasked with reading a specific letter to the community from Governor Denison [12] and presumably wouldn’t have read them both.  Stewart’s journal is of no help.  Although there are indications of a second volume, the one published account of his time on Norfolk ends in January, 1856, many months before the relevant correspondence and events occur.  Consequently, there is no corroborating evidence supporting the handing of a document by Stewart to Young.  Nevertheless, it was the belief of the Pitcairners present that a document giving them possession of the Island was handed to Young, and demanded from him by Denison some three years later.  The wording of this document seems to only have upheld their understanding of Norfolk as being theirs.

There is, as well, no record in Gregorie’s journal of his receiving the second letter-of-instruction from Denham or of his informing the Pitcairners of its content.  But that would have been of little consequence.  Within three weeks of the Pitcairners landing, Captain Stephan Fremantle arrives to read a dispatch authorised by Denison to Chief Magistrate Young.  Dated June 25, 1856, it codifies the spirit of the second letter by now stipulating that all land arrangements on Norfolk will be subject to the Governor’s approval.  To the Pitcairn Islanders, this was reneging on the very agreement which brought them here.  It is at this point that the contention between Pitcairn Islanders, now Norfolk Islanders, and authorities on the Australian mainland about ownership firmly begins.

Flag of Norfolk Island.

Who owns Norfolk Island?  As I mentioned, the historical record only clarifies the dilemma, not answers the question.  The law says one thing, we in our hearts say another.  Which is right?  Does it matter?  Yes, it matters. 

 

Whether we like it or not, we’re now clearly on a new course.  My only point here is to reaffirm our history as we begin, lest it be forgotten or revised.

- Rick Kleiner

 

***

1.  The British Admiralty, upon learning of two families returning to Pitcairn in 1860, directed Captain F.B. Montresor of the “HMS Calypso” to visit Pitcairn and enquire about their condition.  One of the questions asked was why they left Norfolk Island.  To the Captain, the Islanders mentioned climate and homesickness.  Captain Montresor goes on to add, to his officers, more confidentially, they pointed to the arrival of non-Pitcairner Islanders “among them, who were not of them” and ensuing issues of ownership of property.  [Public Records Office, “Calypso”, 1860.]

2.  “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 30.  Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Letter%231.pdf to read the complete document.

3.  “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 35.  Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Letter%232.pdf to read the complete document.

4.  Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Affidavit.pdf to see the Young/Buffett affidavit as we have record of it.

5.  Proclamation from Capt. Stephen Fremantle, Captain of “HMS Juno”, Senior Officer in Australia, to “The Chief Magistrate of the Pitcairn Islanders Now Resident On Norfolk Island”, June 25, 1856.  This document was discovered among Bishop Selwyn’s papers in the Auckland Museum by historian, Merval Hoare, in 1963.  Go to www.rickstours.nlk.nf/Proclamation%20from%20Capt.%20Fremantle.pdf to read the complete document. 

6.  “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 25. 

7.  “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 29. 

8.  Letter from B. Toup Nicolas “To the Pitcairn Islanders”; Raiatea, July 5, 1854. 

9. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 31. 

10. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 31. 

11. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 34. 

12. “Correspondence on the Subject of Removal of Inhabitants of Pitcairn’s Island to Norfolk Island”, 1852-1856; presented to both Houses of Parliament, 5 February, 1857; p. 32.